Statement
by
the Under-Secretary of State of Finland,
Ambassador Jaakko Laajava,
at the Seminar on the Role of EAPC in Combating Terrorism
Mr. Chairman,
Allow me first to thank the Government of Poland for the arrangement
of and preparations for this seminar.
We are grateful that Poland, a Baltic maritime neighbour of
Finland and a country that has strongly demonstrated its resolve
in the fight against terrorism took upon itself this responsibility.
Our Polish friends have given important and tangible support
and follow-up for the Finnish - Swedish initiative on enhancing
the role of the EAPC in the campaign against terrorism. We are
grateful to you.
The papers presented to us by the Deputy Assistant Secretary
General Speckhard and NATO International Staff have mapped the
course for our discussions, given new insights on NATO's internal
preparations and thinking, opened new prospects for the EAPC
in this field as well as provided the way for possible Partner
contributions to strengthen our common fight against terrorism.
The monstrous terrorist acts of 9/11 demonstrated that we had
entered a new era as to our understanding of security. Until
that date, terrorist acts had been perceived as desperate crimes
committed by disturbed individuals and marginal groups. Now,
the reality proved entirely different. A well orchestrated and
resourceful international network intended to threaten the entire
world and intimidate us all with terror and massive destruction.
As a consequence, we have to consider security as an essentially
wider concept than what has been the case so far. Important
threats to our security continue to be military, of course,
but they can also take many other forms. In addition to terrorism,
illicit trafficking in drugs, arms and human beings, other forms
of international crime, HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases,
even environmental degradation and hazards can have a major
impact on our security. The threats to our common existence
may no longer primarily be wars and conflicts between states
but rather intra-state conflicts as well as failing states and
governments that are increasingly incapable to assume their
responsibilities towards the international community.
In all these areas, we need improved international collaboration,
we need to work together to tackle international problems that
concern us all. Many international organisations can find a
proper role of their own in combating terrorism. At the same
time it is important to avoid duplication. The Security Council
of the United Nations of course plays a central role.
While the military dimension is important, fight against terrorism
must use all available avenues, civilian and military, investigation
and prosecution, economic and diplomatic, to name a few. It
is important that we practice what we preach: the rule of law.
Ultimately, we must protect the strengths we possess; defend
- and not weaken - the values, particularly human rights, that
we share. The final goal of course remains to rid the world
of the scourge of terror.
The immediate task ahead is to continue to eliminate the threat
posed by the al-Qaida network. In the medium term one of the
main tasks is to enhance the capacity of the judicial systems
- be it legislation, proper administration, prosecutorial methods
and special equipment - of those countries that are often in
a weak position to counter terrorism.
The spectrum of these countries is broad; at the extreme end
we have failed states, Afghanistan being an example of regimes
that may become hijacked by terrorist organisations. In the
long run, the causes that so easily provide fertile ground for
terrorist recruitment, such as persistent regional conflicts
and deep social and economic inequalities, must be addressed.
Mr. Chairman,
The decisions taken last December by the two NATO Ministerials
are the most important steps to date by NATO as to the role
of the Alliance in the long term campaign against terrorism.
But to make this campaign even more effective, we should be
able to build on them. Terrorism is an international phenomenon
and requires international responses. We should aim at opening
the avenue of cooperation to all those partners willing and
able to embark upon it.
Members and partners share the same threats and the same concerns.
And we shoulder our share of common responsibilities through,
e.g., our participation in the same operations in the Balkans.
It is evident that the EAPC cannot play an independent role
in the fight against terrorism. Meaningful results can only
be achieved when Partners benefit from the Alliance's consultation
and working culture, learn from the Alliance's efforts to develop
its own strategic concept and thinking regarding asymmetric
threats, as well as from the Alliance's preparations on how
to counter them.
It is through the extention of common ideas and common working
methods between the Alliance and the Partners that the EAPC
can bring a value added to our endeavours in this field.
These were the thoughts that inspired the original Finnish
- Swedish initiative. We were heartened by the strong support
by our Partners. Most of our operative suggestions were incorporated
into the EAPC Action Plan.
We see the EAPC as an important vehicle for co-operation with
NATO, for partnership in NATO-led non-Article 5 operations.
But it is also a political umbrella organisation for PfP, for
PARP and for improved interoperability for the purpose of crisis
management.
In order to further enhance cooperation between the Alliance
and the Partners it should be considered whether the practical
approach of the Political-Military Framework could be extended
to cover not just operations but other fields of NATO activities
as well.
I will not dwell on the preparations and role of NATO in the
present campaign against terrorism. It will be explained much
better by others.
Nevertheless, let it be said that the immediate politically
vital decision after 9/11 to invoke Article V and later to deploy
NATO assets, AWACS-planes and the Standing Maritime Force in
the Mediterranean were important measures that started a process
of adaptation that can become comparable to the major changes
the Alliance underwent in the early 1990's after the end of
the Cold War.
And it seems highly likely that the challenge posed by terrorism
will be one of the key points for discussion in Prague in November
of this year.
While this and many other issues such as the enlargement of
the Alliance as well as developing NATO-Russia relationship
will be the main focus of the Prague Summit, so will also be
the future of the Partnership: the redefinition of the EAPC
and the PfP.
At the moment the likely future of the Partnership seems to
point towards a process leading to increased differentiation
and individual issue-oriented structures.
The most valuable assets NATO has are political consensus and
the unity of purpose. Key areas in a response to terrorism are
the adaptation of NATO´s force and command structure and
the tools of defence. Force protection, information and intelligence
are central. Protection of forces and civilians against the
WMD is a challenging issue where the NATO Civilian Emergency
Planning structure will be a valuable asset.
Political solidarity and maintaining the capacity to deter
and strike back are also assets and values that serve the fight
against terrorism, as mentioned in the IS background document
presented to this seminar.
What about the EAPC/PfP contribution?
Immediately after the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington
the EAPC gave a statement of strong support to the US. This
support was reiterated in many ways during the EAPC ministerial
last December. The EAPC will continue to be an important forum
for generating and maintaining political consensus and support
for a prolonged fight against terrorism.
Beyond that the EAPC / PfP is largerly dependent on the willingness
of the Alliance to share the substance of its own cooperation
with Partners. As the Alliance's own deliberations are still
going on only a few tangible ideas are mature to be identified
at this stage. Here are some of them:
The idea of a Trust Fund suggested by Sweden and my country
in support of Partner countries that are most exposed to terrorism.
To associate Partners with NATO's process of force adaptation
to counter asymmetric threats and terrorism. Make the DCI programme
more transparent and allow the force structuring and adaptation
process to influence PARP and Partnership Goals!
Allow Partner access to the activities of the NATO WMD Center!
Develop jointly civil protection capabilities in regard of
which some Partners have advanced standards, skills and infrastructure.
As for the working methods the Pol-Mil framework provides general
guidance and practical inspiration. There ought to be a productive
interplay between the multilateral forum of the EAPC and the
bilateral approach of the PfP while maintaining as much transparency
as possible between the two for the benefit of all Partners.
Here are some further thoughts:
The EAPC is well suited for building and maintaining coalitions,
for consultation, concertation and cooperation and for monitoring
the overall process. The aim must be to make the common denominator
between Allies and Partners as well as among Partners as big
as possible.
The PfP with its down to earth bilateral approach is well adapted
to provide for much of the practical activities. PARP and Partnership
Goals were already mentioned and Partner access to NATO's own
deliberations would of course be welcome. An EAPC ad hoc committee
on terrorism would be a good complement.
Mr. Chairman,
In the fight against terrorism - as in promoting security in
general - Finland seeks to enhance international cooperation.
The determination by which the international community committed
itself to combat terrorism together was a very encouraging sign.
But we also need to do our home work. The European Union adopted
swiftly after September 11 a comprehensive action plan to combat
terrorism. A considerable part of the measures contained in
the plan have already been completed. Work on many others is
underway. Finland is fully committed to this endeavour.
It is our view that our common fight against international
terrorism could also benefit from a closer co-operation between
the EU and NATO. The two organisations have a natural complementarity
in this field.
The strengths of the EU in fighting terrorism, particularly
in the economic and civilian domains, may in the long run become
a valuable asset in developing the overall crisis-management
relationship of the EU and NATO. One option could be to formalize
a dialogue on terrorism on a working level, including relevant
Civil Emergency Planning issues.
The EU's strong regional focus on Central Asia could in my
opinion in a natural way support NATO's efforts in that region.
In more general terms, the outreach efforts by NATO and the
EU should support each other.
Mr. Chairman
The working schedule today and tomorrow, with more detailed
discussions at the Working Tables, will provide us with a welcome
opportunity to exchange ideas and study the possibilities for
concrete joint action against terrorism.
Allow me to repeat my gratitude for the Government of Poland
for organizing this seminar and wish you all an enjoyable and
useful seminar in Warsaw.
|
